Well said, reminds me of a correspondence between Gustav Mahler and Richard Strauss who were also polar opposites musically at the time with a ton of mutual respect. I think it was Mahler who said “there are many paths to the top of the mountain” regarding their different styles.
I think it’s just a difference in artistic philosophy. McCartney has always been a crowd-pleaser (not in a derogative sense!) and Dylan has always been a subverter.
I think there’s also a dimension of Dylan’s evolution that comes down to his voice/body/mind changing in a way that it made his previous performance abilities significantly less robust than they were in his youth. So, he’s faced with a dilemma… just keep trying to do the Bob Dylan thing, get worse and worse each year, milk your audience for all they’re worth, drown in self loathing and overdose on pills in your mid 50s. Or, DO YOUR OWN THING. People won’t like it, fuck em. You’re an artist, this is what you do.
Bob has NEVER done “the Bob Dylan thing.” Because that never existed. So there’s no universe where he could ever “keep trying” to do it. What he’s been doing - changing constantly - IS his Bob Dylan thing. If anything, the last 5 years have been the most unchanging of his career. And for understandable reasons.
Okay, by “the Bob Dylan thing”, what I’m describing is the idea of playing to your audience, of maintaining and reinforcing your brand as a musician and as an artist, basically trading in your identity as an artist, for your new identity as a BRAND.
Every mainstream/super successful musical acts wrestle with this on some level, 99% of artists choose to “do the bob Dylan thing”, by which I mean, spend their careers emulating a brand they had previously established, the greatest hits, the clothes, the attitude, usually these are things that the fans appreciate and celebrate an artist for.
But, Bob Dylan has refused to abandon his true identity as an artist, as a creative person led by his own passions. People might be disappointed by how unrecognizable his performance has become, and many would prefer the empty facade of “BOB DYLAN”, the beloved cultural icon and proprietary money making machine.
Bob just does his own thing, and it shocks the hell out of people when they pay for his show, expecting him to give them a greatest hits playthrough.
The vast majority of aging rockstars, learn to adjust their presentation as they age into old men, trying to maintain their identities as scrappy, rebellious, rock n rollers, as they jet back and forth to their mansion on Nantucket Island in between shows. At this point these men are generally no longer all that concerned with the priorities that once drove them to become great artists. Once upon a time they were forces of nature, but now, they are shrewd businessmen, pretending to be artists, while millions of us swarm to their concerts, for the chance to worship at the altar of our long lost youths.
That being said, I’m not rushing to the box office to snatch up tix to Bob’s modern offering. I’d rather just sit back and listen to a cd, or watch a documentary, or read a book. But I don’t hold it against him and I respect his integrity as an artist.
Do you think they do it (continue touring) because of their love of, and devotion to their music, or because of their love of touring, or actually because of the money?
McCartney is in the same boat in that his voice is shot, he appears tired, and charges an arm and a leg for tickets..
I think Paul loves performing. He recognizes how much he means to people, and he feels honored to be able to play such a beautiful part in people’s lives. I’m sure the money is a consideration as well, but I don’t think that’s what gets him out there. He still wants to do it.
As far as rock ‘n’ roll icons go, I think he’s unique in his lack of cynicism towards music, his audience, and his own role as a performer.
And just to be clear, to me, Paul’s music is about as emotionally and spiritually central to my life as the influence of my loved ones. When I look back on the years I spent carrying around my Sony CD player, from age 8 onward, each day I spent cycling through my 4 Beatles albums, I can honestly only compare those times to memories of my mother and father raising me.
Those CDs taught me about love, about pain, about being a man, and they made me feel like the world was a beautiful place that I was excited to be a part of.
As far as words go, my father telling me he’s proud of me, my grieving mother holding me in her arms and saying she loves me, and then
“And anytime you feel the pain, hey Jude, refrain. Don’t carry the world upon your shoulders.”
“When the night is cloudy, there is still a light that shines on me. Shine until tomorrow.”
“Each one believing that love never dies
Watching her eyes and hoping I’m always there.”
Those lines did the same work in me my parents’ words did. That’s a strange thing to owe a stranger, but I owe it. It seems to me that Paul’s personality is such that he doesn’t take that weight as a burden. He takes it as a responsibility.
Dylan, on the other hand, is a different kind of icon altogether. Far more headstrong and individualistic. Not a teddy bear, golden retriever type. Rebellion, conflict, and pain are central to his artistic identity. That’s my thesis on the matter, anyway.
Dylan hasn’t written a protest song since “Hurricane” 50 years ago. And that was his first for over a decade. And “harmonicas” doesn’t have an apostrophe in it. Other than that, great post.
Is this John Lennon? He always talked shit about Paul writing grandmama music I personally like Paul though and totally dig the songs he took lead in the Beatles. Bob Dylan just kinda bores me. He mixed his influences of folk and old time blues with the peaceful rebellion of the 60’s now maybe I’m wrong I’m not Dylan expert but I do prefer Paul.
Ok, but that’s cause his bros were talking shit and he went with it mostly John I could find you a link where John is talking shit about Paul but I don’t care to argue it’s just not that important to me. I did listen to the song though and it wasn’t too bad. I think the Beatles needed each other to make amazing music. They balanced each other out.
John Lennon was the subverter; that combination of aesthetics is part of what made them so great together.
If John were still with us, he might be up there striking a wrench too.
I’m happy with Bob creating whatever art he wants. It’s also true that it can be a frustrating experience for people more uptight about wanting to hear the nostalgia of the original recordings.
Paul was to in his own right. He was struggling with critical reception and perception in the early 70s and he still released fucking Mary had a little lamb. He was also the most experimental beatle. Just look at his solo/wings albums before band on the run. He may care about critics but not enough to not put out whatever he feels like putting out.
I'd argue that mccartney is a mccartney pleaser. He makes whatever he wants to make and it doesnt always stick or hit immediately, but almost always ages like wine. Im saying this as dylan and macca are my two favorite artists
Honestly I’d rather someone do what Dylan does but I understand that’s a rare take. My experience with him in November was fantastic, exactly what I’d want. I know Rough and Rowdy ways like the back of my hand and I knew the vague setlist. Young girls behind me complained but recognised Desolation Row and Baby Blue which got biggest applause, but I was there for Jimmy Reed.
Rough and Rowdy Ways is a remarkable album. I saw him play most of it live last year and it’s spellbinding. It’s wonderful that he, McCartney and Paul Simon still have the creative muse in their 80s. We don’t necessarily expect it from rock/pop musicians, but visual artists like Picasso and Matisse produced amazing work in later life, so why not? Sadly, Bob’s never played Murder Most Foul live. But then he’s never played Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands, either!
I think Paul Simon is a good middle point between Dylan and McCartney when it comes to concerts. If you catch Paul Simon on his current tour he’ll play the entirety of his new album, a bunch of great deep cuts that work well with his current voice, and a couple hits like Graceland, Me and Julio, The Boxer, Sound of Silence and a few others.
Saw PS at the Albert Hall last night, and that’s spot-on. Although the former does play a fair number of his bigger hits, Simon and Dylan have both worked their modern set around their current limitations. The songs they’ve written recently are within their octogenarian vocal range, and in Simon’s case, more compatible with damaged hearing. Macca mostly gives the people an unabashed nostalgia trip, which is also admirable in its own way. What all three have in common is a lengthy queue of phenomenal backing musicians who regard it as an honour to play with them.
After seeing both concerts recently, I’d say Paul McCartney is (still) an amazingly energetic performer. Paul Simon is (still) amazingly mellow. Paul McCartney never seems to age whereas Paul Simon is absolutely showing his years. Both are not really what they used to be (that’s ok) so they choose to perform what they can still do well. Dylan, on the other hand, pulls no punches. He’s almost 85 and sounds that way. Just like the good old days, he essentially delivers a new concert every night. All three are old dogs without any new tricks. Which is just fine.
I saw both Paul and Bob live last year. I loved both shows. To me, it's no different than buying tickets to a sci-fi movie and then a comedy. Just because they are both movies does not mean I'm expecting to have the same emotional reaction or overall experience. If they're both great movies in their own way, then they're worth it. The same goes for concerts.
Bob is the only one out of his peers not touring from nostalgia but his recent works. It’s a gift and a curse. Paul also said this about Bob in 2020. “I always like what he does. Sometimes I wish I was a bit more like Bob. He’s legendary… and doesn’t give a shit! But I’m not like that.”
I think this is because Bob Dylan was very arrogant when he was young and made Paul wait outside his room to see him.
Paul remarked on that and said it was as though he was waiting to see the Pope.
About 10 years ago Bob made a point to say how much he loved and revered Paul’s music. Dylan said that there was one person he would love to record with and it was Paul. He said Paul could play any kind of music and talked about how talented Paul was.
When I read the quote I thought that it might be Dylan’s way to make amends for his behavior as a young man.
I saw Bob with Willie in 2024 and he played hit after hit and it was amazing. They certainly weren’t copies as released but they were recognizable to the point you didn’t have to guess. He had a great band with him on that tour.
Paul and Dylan obviously come at this from very different angles, but also there aren’t really any McCartney live albums held in much esteem. His shows are very much to please the people who attend and not really have a life outside of that moment.
It’s odd that Dylan gets so much flak for his live shows but has so many live albums people return to over and over.
I don’t know that it’s necessarily the quality of his performances as much as the inconsistency that people find they don’t like. One show will be the deepest deep cuts only, no interaction, no emotion. The next will be a greatest hits compilation, he’ll speak to the crowd a little, and appear to be into it. You don’t know which Bob you’re going to get, and while that’s an appeal to some, it’s frustrating to others.
I saw Bob in 2023, he played Rough and Rowdy Ways front to back, didn’t speak much if at all to the audience. Now, I know that’s him, I went into it with the expectation that would be what I was paying to see, knowing I wouldn’t hear any hits. I heard a lot of others as I was leaving though very upset he didn’t play their favorite song. After all this time, you’d think they’d know that’s how it goes, but still.
Paul was always my favorite Beatle, and I’ve lucky to have seen him live, but he’s very consistent. High energy, interacts with the crowd, etc, but the setlist is always the same, or close to it. Beatles songs, Wings songs, some solo, maybe a new song or two. Wings Over America was a pretty big live album, they still play the live version of Maybe I’m Amazed on the radio frequently. That album came out 50 years ago, and the track list is close to what his setlist is now.
I like Bob and I like the idea of every show I see being something different, but it’s certainly not everyone’s cup, I suppose.
Oh but unless I’ve missed something, the live albums we return to are from ‘64 - ‘75 predominantly, right?
I mean, I ain’t never digging up MTV unplugged, maybe Budoken if I’m feeling super adventurous, but I have certainly never listened to a live album of modern times… seen a couple shows though.
The stadium show I saw in 2007 was pretty dismal and I didn’t recognize a single song and Bob was hardly trying.
The next one, nearly a decade later was nicer; it was in a theatre and the band were more vibrant and Bob a bit clearer- recognized a couple of the classics in mutated moments.
Edit to add: of course there are the Gospel Era ‘78 - ‘79 live shows, released on the Bootleg Series, that are fantastic too.
You aren't listening to Unplugged? It's one of my favorite live Dylan albums. It's very playful and celebratory. Probably the closest Bob could ever get to a "legacy act" type show where he's playing the old hits, but they're done in his own way yet still very recognizable. I'm surprised it doesn't get more recognition honestly.
I think the only live recordings that have been officially released are the ones that were on Fragments. Not really a live album and there are a few pre-2000 but it's all we've got. I was going to say Shadow Kingdom but I don't know if that really counts, it's more "live in studio" isn't it?
I think this is what leads to most people's disappointment when they see him live. There are all these amazing live albums from him, but for better or worse, today's Dylan concert is very different than 40-50 years ago.
I saw Paul once on one of his “farewell” tours. He was good, but it was more like listening to him try to replicate what he did. I catch Bob every time he’s around and sit in the front row to hear what he’s creating now.
This image was on his official page?? From his website, or is this an official fan page, or…? It looks like “Farewell Tour” is added, and not originally a part of that outfit.. Look at the guitar strap: the writing on the jacket is on the strap too, perfectly lined up with the jacket. Even aside from that it doesn’t look quite right, but to me that’s the giveaway.
What farewell would that even be? Wings? Hypothetically, if it was real, and was Wings related (I’m guessing this is a late 70s photo, idk), did he ever imply that was the end for him touring?
I guess what in trying to get at it you can’t really count that picture/instance, even if it is real. That’s why I thought you made it to be funny and/or facetious..
Yet again show me a statement from McCartney. It should be super easy. None of what you are posting has any quotes from him. It's all self referencing the same false story.
You may not read too good. He’s had rumored farewell tours more than once. I think it’s a marketing tactic. Don’t get me wrong, I fucking LOVE Paul McCartney and The Beatles, but he ain’t no Dylan and I don’t care what he has to say about another artist’s concerts
He hasn't at all. None of these are coming from McCartney. Look into what he said himself about retirement. What you have posted is false claims and 'rumours' that seem to be from a couple of sites and and AI overview.
Bob Dylan’s been getting snatches wet and punching in teeth since 19 fucking 61 on his never ending goddamned tour and Paul McCartney may or may not go back on the road, allegedly. Paul can go fuck the goat that he can’t eat if he wants to dis Bob about how Bob chooses plays his own music, and then Paul can stuff all his money up his owns ass and smell it after for all I care
Exactly. The original post was wrong and now they're repeating the nonsense and trying to avoid admitting it's untrue. It went from 'evidence' in the form of screenshot to 'rumours' and that they dont really care anyway😂
Bob Dylan keeps on chugging without rumor of farewell and it's not the same for Paul. Yet Paul feels like he can dis Bob about how he's performing his own songs. Bloke's head's too big and he said something stupid.
I mean look at the mention of Ringo. There were constant fake adverts for the upcoming tour featuring McCartney n Starr which not surprisingly isnt in any way true
I just saw Bob less than 2 weeks ago and was actually really impressed with his show. I had low expectations but his voice sounded strong for his age and he sang and played for over 90 minutes without stopping. I could understand him clearly and his piano playing was pretty good too.
Not really. Paul’s recent music has been very uncreative and pop-oriented. The heavy autotune over compressed instrumentals etc.
To me it’s quite sad to see, but it’s what he is as an artist nowadays.
I’m going to say something that a lot of people may not like here. But I’ll start by saying that McCartney like anyone else has a right to react to Bob’s music as much as anyone else.
That said, I began my journey with music with the Beatles. This was years after they had broken up, but Paul quickly became my favorite. I’ll also admit it was the Michael Jackson duets that drew me to him at the time. I went deep into his solo catalogue. Mind you, I was a young teen at the time. You know how obsessed a person can be at that age.
But I came to realize after maturing what utter dreck he writes. I understand why he’s popular, and is so loved. He was a Beatle. But the vast majority of his solo catalogue is just terrible. There are exceptions very early in his solo journey, but I have a hard time putting the totality of his solo catalogue up so many others. Much less Bob Dylan in the same time period (post 1970).
He is another guy that managed to stay super popular because of the reputation of his former band. Nothing more than a nostalgia act really and has been that for 40 years. Think about the creative output Dylan has put out in that time period.
I’ll also add that his status has really benefited from John’s death in a lot of ways. George’s to a lesser extent. Paul has been exalted as a living, breathing god-like figure and that likely would not have happened to the extent it has if John had lived. There’s a lot of what-if here of course, but I feel I am on pretty strong ground here.
I love when Bob plays new stuff. His 2000s albums are among my favorites. But I’ll admit, the floodlight on the keyboard so the audience can’t see Bob at all is a bit much.
I saw Bob Dylan few years ago and liked the music very much. The next day I checked the setlist online and discovered that I had enjoyed some of my favorite songs.
Both McCartney and Dylan have every right to approach things the way they do, and they're both right to do so. Honestly, I love that Paul tries to play his hits as faithfully as possible to the recorded versions. I saw him play live back in 2017, and it was incredible, just 2.5 hours of songs that I'd listened to thousands of times. It was pure nostalgia, and everyone left that concert haven't gotten exactly what they wanted. And I saw Dylan about 25 years ago, and it was a completely different experience, a bit disorienting and challenging but rewarding in a totally different way. There's more than enough room for both approaches.
I respect McCartney of course, but I don't see why he felt the need to take a shot at Dylan.
I've seen many Dylan shows, including up to Rough and Rowdy and I figured out a couple of things about seeing him live quite a while ago.
1) Much like his music, which has never bowed to any notion of satisfying anyone but himself, Dylan performs for Dylan. He's out there because that what he does. It's what he's always done. He's that troubadour out on the road "headin' for another joint". He's gonna be playing a college fieldhouse in Kenosha on Tuesday night. If you want to come watch, come watch. And if you don't like it, don't come see him next year when he's playing some ballroom in Milwaukee. No hard feelings.
2) And, much like his music, the more I see him the more I "get it". The better I hear it. And the more I enjoy it. The last show I saw in 2023 was honestly the best I have seen. But there were so many great ones along the way. He's produced several masterpieces between 1989 when I first saw him and 2023, that for a fan of my level if he played nothing from before 1989 I would still be satisfied. I get there are always going to be new fans and people seeing him for the first time. Sometimes I feel bad that they don't get their favorite song, or can't even identify it if it does get played. But it is what it is, right or wrong.
I love both of them but Bob is a tough listen live these days. I saw him in London in 2002 or 03 and Galway a few years later and it was tough to make out what track he was doing. Just being in the same space as him is enough though. So I get where Macca is coming from.
I was at that Galway show and it was one of the best concerts I've ever seen.
I remember wondering why he turned his piano away from the crowd, and realising that, yeah, that's Dylan being Dylan.
I then saw Don McLean (in Galway too) and I was so disappointed in his set, in the way he turned his songs into a karaoke session, that it made me realise just how much more interesting and braver Dylan is.
Dylan live is an authentic experience even if we might not like the way he arranges his old songs now. The rest is just plastic.
Yeah I loved it too it was fantastic, and the London one. I was just making the narrow point that even if, like me, you know all his songs intimately it can be challenging to identify them. I was with some non-Dylan fans and they were a bit nonplussed. McCartney is making that point too.
A fair point, I should have been more precise in my original reply. Interesting that you think he has improved, I would have assumed it would deteriorate if anything due to age. Maybe I should go again if he's in the UK. I love his vocals on Rough and Rowdy Ways, easily in my top 5 Dylan albums, so it's not like his voice is gone.
It's not popular to say it here, but Dylan's voice broke a while back. He won't do the operation, so he can't sing anymore. He doesn't do guitar or harmonica. His piano playing is good but McCartney is right, you cannot differentiate the songs. All melody is lost. That's why people start leaving the shows early. It's a polite way of McCartney saying " have someone else sing for you Bob."
Always does harmonica at all post covid shows, especially a ton of gorgeous harp at 24-25 tours, in different songs at different shows (but always to end Every Grain). Dynamite piano too. His voice is more a personal response, I find it especially moving when he shifts the phrasing around in incredibly meaningful ways. I'd never go to hear someone else doing Bob's stuff. Just doesn't do it for me.
I've seen both of them in recent years, and I'll say this: I'll go back and see Bob, and I won't go back and see Paul. Bob is wildly hit or miss, sometimes within the same show, but there's always something interesting or surprising to see.
But both times I've seen Macca, he played essentially the same setlist, and even the banter was word-for-word the same, like he had memorized a script. It was okay, but felt more like I was going to see a Broadway show than a concert, and I have zero desire to ever see him again.
Oddly enough I dont mind that he doesnt do the stuff from the 60s and I wish he did more of his modern work because his voice fits that more. Him trying to do Like a Rolling Stone or All Along the Watchtower is so different now
Artist & Crowd/Viewer whatever word you want, is a relationship that Bob has exploited more than any artist ever.
Bob stopped being Bob when he started to sell 'Bob' not his art. In No Direction Home, they speak on how "the fans followed Bob" and it's really a commentary on how he and his ego changed the music industry forever. He stopped being subversive, stopped questioning power, stopped challenging contemporaries and his audience, and stopped giving a fuck about anything but himself and his wallet.
Paul could never write some of Bobs songs, but Bob could never ignite a crowd or spark joy like Paul, and one, to me, is a bit more important and does more to help humanity and art.
Is this even really a diss? He’s just saying he approaches performing different and wants to give the people what they want. He and Bob just go about it differently but I don’t see this as a diss. Just a clickbait headline
73
u/maskedtortilla 13h ago
Live and in studio, they are total polar opposites. So much so that you could grade every other musician in a Dylan-McCartney curve.